peter lape and randy hert - university of washington

Chapter 4

ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE IN TIMOR LESTE: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

Peter Lape and Randy Hert

Introduction

The material remains of the past make up a major, though not the only,

portion of what is called “cultural heritage.” These remains are a limited

and threatened resource globally. Archaeologists are but one group of people

who have interests in controlling, using and conserving these resources. In

fact, archaeologists and cultural resource managers may have very different

objectives as well as methods, which may at times be in confl ict with each

other. Additionally, so-called “indigenous” archaeology may present a third set

of differing objectives and methods.

In this paper, we review the history of archaeology and cultural resource

management (CRM) in Timor Leste in the context of global movements and,

in particular, contrast to North America. Our paper also presents qualitative

impressions about public attitudes regarding archaeology and cultural heritage

in Timor Leste, as well as the results of a pilot survey of public attitudes about

archaeology in the town of Manatuto in July 2005 (conducted by Randy Hert

who was then a University of Washington archaeology fi eld school student).

While the small sample size and range of questions should not be taken to

represent public opinion more generally in Southeast Asia, the study does

highlight some of the key issues as well as the diversity of opinions held by

people in a town in Timor Leste.

The literature on the relationship between archaeologists, cultural resource

managers and the public outside of the North America and Europe is limited,

but it generally suggests that lessons learned in North America or Europe

should not be uncritically applied to Southeast Asia situations (Layton 1989;

This chapter has been published in the volume 'Rethinking Cultural Resource Management in Southeast Asia: Preservation, Development, and Neglect', edited by John N. Miksic, Geok Yian Goh and Sue O’Connor.

London: Anthem Press, 2011. ISBN: 9780857283894.

68 RETHINKING CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Glover and Glover 1990; Schmidt and Patterson 1995; Lape 2003, 2004).

Widely different historical, cultural, economic and political contexts have a

major impact on issues such as the role of the past in the present (Marr and

Reid 1979; Zurbuchen 2005), the meaning of material objects and museum

collections in people’s lives (Hoskins 1998; Schefold and Vermeulen 2002;

Kreps 2003), and the role, rights and responsibilities of foreign and local

researchers to local and national communities (Glover and Glover 1990;

Glover 2004; Dalton 2005a, 2005b).

Our audience for this paper is primarily archaeological researchers. We

suggest that in order to maintain access to cultural heritage objects and sites for

research in the future (via governmental and local permissions), archaeologists

must: 1) understand the various uses of cultural heritage in local and national

communities; and 2) understand how archaeology as a practice is perceived in

these communities. By focusing attention on these issues, archaeologists may

be able to maintain better working relationships with these communities as well

as gain new allies in heritage conservation efforts. We hope that these issues

and the questions they raise can be usefully applied to other areas of Southeast

Asia towards efforts to maintain access by archaeologists and protect cultural

heritage resources in the future.

Background on Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

in Timor Leste

Prior to its separation and subsequent independence from Indonesia in 1999,

East Timor had seen relatively little attention from archaeologists. Primary

work was done by Almeida and other Portuguese researchers in the 1950s and

60s (Ormeling 1956; Almeida 1961; Correa 1964; Almeida and Zbyszewski

1967) and Glover conducted dissertation research there in the late 1960s

(Glover 1970; Glover 1986). During the Indonesian administration of East

Timor from 1975 to 1999, few non-Indonesians were allowed to work there

and Indonesian archaeological research was confi ned to descriptive cultural

resources surveys. Since 1999, intensive archaeological research has begun

again (e.g. O’Connor et al. 2002; Spriggs et al. 2003; Lape 2006; Lape et al.

2007; O’Connor 2007; O’Connor and Oliveira 2007; Chao 2008; Lape and

Chao 2008; O’Connor, Aplin et al. 2010; O’Connor et al. 2010). Both cultural

anthropologists and archaeologists have also considered the importance of

cultural heritage resources including caves, ancestral graves and old village

sites (e.g. McWilliam 2003; Pannell 2004; Pannell and O’Connor 2005; Veth

et al. 2005; Pannell 2006; McWilliam 2007a; McWilliam 2007b; McWilliam

2008; O’Connor et al. this volume). These sites play an important role in

contemporary cultural practice as sacred places, sites of clan histories and



ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE IN TIMOR LESTE 69

other kinds of social memory. These memories are often strongly related

to local identity and resistance to outside control, including the Portuguese

and Indonesian colonial administration (Gunn 1999; Fox and Soares 2000;

O’Connor et al. this volume). In general, however, this research has been

conducted by foreign researchers and published in European languages. Very

little of this research has been disseminated back to local communities in

Timor Leste.

As such, the history of archaeology and cultural resource management

in Timor Leste can be divided into four periods: precolonial (pre-1700

AD); Portuguese administration (1700–1974); Indonesian administration

(1975–1999), and independence (2000–present). Although almost nothing is

known about the precolonial period, we presume that knowledge about past

was contained in oral traditions with landscape mnemonics and that power

and identity operated primarily at the local level. During the Portuguese and

Indonesian administration periods, the country experienced the creation of

colonial ideologies, identity and political control. This included colonialist

archaeology (with minimal impact on or relevance to local people) and the

establishment of colonial or provincial museums. “Valuable” artifacts were

often taken to colonial centers in Lisbon or Jakarta. Cultural heritage was

also sometimes at the center of the confl ict between colonial and anticolonial

groups during these two colonial periods. The destruction of cultural heritage

sites was used as method of warfare and at the same time, anticolonial

resistance movements utilized cultural heritage sites as a source of magical

power and to co-opt and build local (anti-Portuguese or Indonesian) identity

(Pannell and O’Connor 2005).

After independence and transition from United Nations administration

in 2002, the former anti-Indonesian resistance movement was elected to

government power and has since struggled to invent national (i.e. unifying)

identity and history. Associated with this struggle has been a transition away

from colonialist archaeology, with greater interest in locally relevant research

and local control (discussed in more detail below), the creation of a National

Museum, the appointment of a government staff archaeologist and efforts

to reclaim “looted” artifacts from former colonial power centers. Despite

these efforts, the new Timor Leste government has not yet asserted signifi cant

control over the management of cultural resources in the country, primarily

because the extremely limited fi nancial and staff resources have been required

for other pressing needs in this developing nation. Currently the State

Secretariat of Culture (Secretaria de Estado da Cultura) is responsible for

issuing archaeological research permits and approving loans of archaeological

materials to foreign researchers. The secretariat is also the administrative

home of the National Museum, which is being rebuilt from the largely looted




collections of the former Indonesian Provincial Museum (Centeno and de

Sousa 2001). At this writing there is not yet an archaeology training program at

any Timorese university. There is only one trained archaeologist on the ministry

staff, although some of the museum staff have received some archaeological

fi eld training either during the Indonesian period or subsequently with visiting

foreign archaeologists. The governments of Australia and Portugal as well as

organizations like UNESCO have been involved in various cultural heritage

projects, primarily with the rebuilding of museum collections, but also in the

preservation of traditional architecture and with cultural resource surveys of

proposed national parks or reserves (see O’Connor et al. this volume).

In contrast to a relatively disengaged national government,1 “management”

of cultural resources is a daily practice for many people living in Timor Leste

at the local level. There are often people in small communities with extensive,

specialized knowledge about the history and meaning of local cultural heritage

sites. Material remains of old villages, graves, caves, rock art, place markers

and natural landscape features among other things are often imbued with

historical or sacred meanings (O’Connor et al. this volume). While maintaining

the knowledge and physical integrity of these sites is often the responsibility

of traditional/religious leaders in communities, typically most community

members in Timor Leste share and participate in this work. In our experience,

neither traditional leaders nor other community members knew much about the

science and practice of archaeology before our work began. But these people

immediately understood how we could think these places were important.

Relations between Archaeologists and Local Communities

Unlike the relations between archaeologists and indigenous communities

in North America and Australia, the very limited history of archaeological

research in Timor Leste has not yet resulted in preconceptions about the

practice and value of archaeology either positive or negative by East Timorese.

In the course of fi eld surveys we have occasionally encountered people who

remembered archaeological projects from the 1960s, but most of the time

these left a neutral impression. This contrasts with our experiences in the

1 It should be noted that since this survey was conducted in 2005, the Timor Leste

government has become more engaged with cultural heritage. It now has a website

where many research papers relating to culture in Timor Leste are posted (http://www.

cultura.gov.tl/en/documentation/publications, accessed 20 October 2011). There are

also now culture representatives working at the district level who are meant to foster

local awareness of the importance of cultural heritage and to work with communities to

identify culturally significant sites or sites under threat.




United States, where Native American communities, for example, are very engaged

with archaeological research, while at the same time often sharply critical of the

history and contemporary practice of archaeology. Critiques in America have

centered on the treatment of human remains found in archaeological sites, but

have also raised issues such as the perceived lack of relevance of archaeology to

important problems and questions within Native American communities (Thomas

2000; Watkins 2000; Little 2002). The advantage of working in the atmosphere

currently prevailing in Timor Leste is that we have the opportunity to build a good

relationship from the beginning. But this type of relationship building requires

more than good intentions. Indeed, American archaeologists in the US have

almost always had the best intentions in mind, but they often failed to understand

how their work was perceived by indigenous people, which resulted largely from an

often total disengagement from living Native American communities. We suggest

that building good relationships requires understanding of the role of cultural

heritage in the present and an understanding of evolving attitudes of various

“publics” towards the objectives and practice of archaeological research.

Public Opinion Survey in Manatuto, July 2005

Archaeologists and cultural resource managers have made some preliminary

efforts towards understanding the attitudes of various “publics” about

archaeology and cultural heritage (McManamon 1991; Pokotylo and Mason

1991; Ramos and Duganne 2000). In the US, for example, an extensive public

opinion poll was conducted by Harris Interactive in 1999 sponsored by the

Society for American Archaeology (Ramos and Duganne 2000). Numerous

articles in the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) monthly newsletter

discuss how archaeologists can be better communicators with various “publics”

using different media and public relations strategies (Pendergast 1998).

Understanding public opinions and values about cultural heritage is important

because “value” or “signifi cance” are concepts typically used in making policy

decisions about how to use limited public resources to support an (unlimited)

need for protection (King 1998; King 2002; Mathers et al. 2005), as well as

in applying legal, legislative and law enforcement solutions (Hutt et al. 1992;

Hutt et al. 2006). There is signifi cant discussion in the literature about differing

attitudes towards archaeology, science and cultural resources protection held by

different cultural and ethnic groups, especially Native Americans in the USA

and indigenous groups in Australia (Layton 1989; Deloria 1992; Schmidt and

Patterson 1995; Thomas 2000; Watkins 2000; Zimmerman et al. 2003; Vitelli

and Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2006). These studies suggest that the “public” is

composed of numerous subgroups that can have radically different attitudes.

These attitudes affect cultural heritage protection efforts in myriad ways.




To date, little has been published about public attitudes towards archaeology

in Southeast Asia. The intent of the survey described below is to begin to

address this lack by providing preliminary data about how a local Southeast

Asian community understands, appreciates, and accepts archaeology in

the broader context of cultural heritage. The Timor Leste public is unique

with regards to our subject for two main reasons. First, people born prior to

1970 or who were at least 35 years old during the course of this study have

memories of the now independent country being controlled by two successive

colonial administrations: Portugal and Indonesia. Second, Timor Leste has

had relatively little archaeological work conducted until after 2000. Since the

citizens have little previous exposure to archaeology, the potential existed for

survey responses that would refl ect opinions about the value of archaeology as

separate from colonial experiences.

Survey Methods

Primary data collection took place in Manatuto, a community 64km east of

the capitol city of Dili. This community has had some recent exposure to

archaeological research. University of Washington (UW) PhD student Chao

Chin-yung conducted archaeological survey and excavations in and around

Manatuto from 2004–2006 (Chao 2008). In July 2005, a UW archaeology

fi eld school with seven American students was conducted at the Lek Paturan

site on the outskirts of the Manatuto town center.

After generating the list of fi ve questions to include on the survey, 100

paper copies of the page were created. These could be fi lled out and returned

at the survey taker’s leisure, and also served to create a physical record of

the survey responses. The questions were printed in both Indonesian and

English. To aid in the distribution of the survey, an assistant from Manatuto

who also on the archaeological fi eld crew distributed, collected, and provided

assistance in reading and recording results to those individuals who were

either not formally educated in either of the two languages or not able to

fi ll out the paper survey. This allowed for the collection of data from people

with a wide range of educational backgrounds and reading/writing abilities.

The disadvantage of this method was that it did not allow for the survey to be

anonymous, since a particular community member distributed, collected and

sometimes administered the survey, and this likely infl uenced our results.

The analysis of the results of this survey used three variables: age, gender

and education level. Our hypothesis was that, given the political history of

Timor Leste and different levels of access to education and information

by males and females, age and education would be signifi cant factors in

survey responses. With the fi nal two questions in particular, we assumed




that a higher-level education would expose people to other ways of knowing

about the past beyond traditional creation stories that would be evident in

the survey results.

Rationale for Survey Questions and Predicted Responses

1. Is history important to you?

This served as a “warm-up” question, and a way to introduce the respondent

to the general topic of the survey. We assumed that the people of Manatuto,

especially those 35 years old and older, would have a strong personal connection

to history given the dramatic and often tragic period of warfare and political

turmoil that they had experienced. We hypothesized that there would be a

near 100 percent return of yes responses to this question, regardless of the

variables used to evaluate the question’s results.

2. Is the history of your people more important

than the history of a different people?

As with question one, we expected personal and political histories to affect

responses. We also assumed that responses to this question would be closely

related to general worldview or “worldliness.” We hypothesized that if there

was a connection to their own history, the age variable could be used to see if

the greater percentage of yes responses came from the post-35 age category.

3. Is archaeology a useful way of uncovering history?

This question was meant to query the role of archaeology versus oral traditions

or written documents. We assumed the survey taker knew what archaeology

is. This may well have been incorrect, and future surveys should attempt to

correct for this assumption.

4. Have you heard human origin theory of man

originating from outside Timor?

5. Do you believe this theory might be correct?

Questions four and fi ve were intentionally tied together as a way of exploring

the role of local traditional origin stories. Many East Timorese had reported

to us belief in these stories in which the fi rst people on earth appear in Timor

Leste. We hypothesized that higher education would be a determining factor

for yes responses to these questions due to exposure to scientifi c theories of




human origins in Africa, and that differential access to education by gender

might also be a signifi cant determinant.

Survey Results

We received responses from 98 people. Respondent ages ranged from 14 to 82

(mean 28.6), with 71 percent being male and 29 percent female (Figures 4.1,

4.3 and 4.4). Education levels ranged from no formal education (8 percent)

to postsecondary (10 percent), with the majority of respondents having some

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

14 16 18 20 22 24 27 29 32 34 36 39 41 47 55 62 67 87

Age

Nu

mb

er o

f re

spo

nd

ents

Figure 4.1. Age frequency of survey respondents.

Figure 4.2. Percentage of responses by education level.

Note: The education system of Timor Leste is comprised of several levels, roughly equivalent

to the United States’ elementary, middle school, and high school (in Indonesian: SD, SMP, and

SMA, respectively).




formal education (primary school 7 percent, middle school 24 percent and

high school 51 percent; Figure 4.2).

Discussion of Results

When determining the most useful statistical tool to analyze the relationship

between the variables of age, gender and education, and the responses to our

survey questions, we realized that our survey captured several types of data.

While the variable of age is an interval data type and thus parametric in nature

the other variables are nominal data types and are nonparametric in nature.

Thus, we used two methods of statistical analysis to analyze the relationships

existing in our data most effectively.

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5

Question number

Per

cen

tag

e o

f ye

s re

spo

nse

sFigure 4.3. Percentage of yes responses to each question by all respondents.

0102030405060708090

100

1 2 3 4 5

Question number

Per

cen

tag

e o

f ye

s re

spo

nse

s

Male Female

Figure 4.4. Percentage of yes responses by gender.




In analyzing the relationship between age and survey responses to the questions,

we used Pearson’s product-moment correlation coeffi cient, a parametric statistical

analysis method that results in Pearson’s correlation coeffi cient (Pearson’s r) based

on degrees of freedom (df). Pearson’s correlation coeffi cient has a value anywhere

between –1 and +1. Positive correlation indicates both variables rising together,

while negative correlation indicates that an increase in one variable corresponds to

a decrease in the other variable. A value of –1 or +1 signifi es a perfect relationship,

while a value of 0 signifi es no relationship. Our guideline for measuring the

relationship level of the correlation value is based on Cohen’s guidelines for social

sciences: weak relationship, r = 0.1–0.23; moderate relationship, r = 0.24–0.36;

strong relationship, r = 0.37 or greater (Cohen 1988).

In analyzing the relationship between gender and level of education with

the survey responses to the questions, we used Pearson’s chi-square (X²) test, a

nonparametric statistical method that is better equipped to analyze relationships

in qualitative data that is categorical in nature (Lowry 2011). Contingency

tables were employed to calculate the chi-square statistic based on degrees

of freedom (df). In cases where there was too little data in a particular cell on

the table, Yates’ chi-square and p-value corrections were employed to prevent

overestimation of statistical signifi cance.

To evaluate the signifi cance of the results in both models, we test a null

hypothesis (there is no relationship between the variable being tested and the

survey responses) against our alternative hypothesis (there is a relationship

between the variable being tested and the survey responses) and calculate

the p-value using a 95 percent confi dence interval (alpha = 0.05). In short,

when our p-value is less than our 0.05 confi dence interval, we can reject our

null hypothesis and accept with more than 95 percent confi dence that the

relationship represented by the data actually exists in the population from

which we took our sample (Motulsky 2010).

1. Is history important to you?

As hypothesized, nearly everybody (over 90 percent) agreed that history was

important to them. Males and those older than 35 responded yes to this

question more frequently than others, and interestingly, 100 percent of those

with no formal education responded yes to this question.

2. Is the history of your people more important

than the history of a different people?

Education, rather than age, was the most important variable with this question.

Intriguingly, those with middle school education had signifi cantly lower




percentage of yes responses, while the primary school education had the highest

percentage yes responses. While we hypothesized that a higher education level

would bring with it a perspective that one people’s history is as important as that

of any another, the survey results do not seem to support that hypothesis.

3. Is archaeology a useful way of uncovering history?

Responses to this question varied differently by age, gender and education.

Younger people responded yes more frequently than older, and females were

much more likely than males to respond yes. As predicted, people with no

formal education or primary education returned fewer yes responses than

those with higher education levels (all respondents who said yes had some

formal education). This would suggest that the value of archaeology as a

science is emphasized in Timor Leste’s education system. Younger people who

were also more educated said yes more frequently than older people who were

also less educated. The ties between age and education will become even more

evident in the fi nal two questions.

4. Have you heard human origin theory of man originating

from outside Timor?

Education level was the factor that most infl uenced responses to this

question, while age and gender had little correlation. We expected to see

higher education level correlating with yes responses, as more exposure to

formal education increases the chance that a respondent would be exposed

to theories of human evolution. This does not seem to be the case. In fact,

those with no formal education had the highest number of yes responses,

while those with primary education had zero yes responses. From middle

school to postsecondary education, higher education levels produced fewer

yes responses. Clearly this question requires further investigation into the

causes of these responses.

5. Do you believe this theory might be correct?

The results for this question raise some new questions. As hypothesized,

the older age group returned fewer yes responses than the younger group.

Gender does not seem to be an important factor, with females slightly

more likely to respond yes. Education does seem to be a factor. The reason

for this seems to be the same case as in question three; younger people who

were also more educated respond yes more frequently than less educated

older people.




Ta

ble

4.1

. C

orr

elat

ion

bet

wee

n a

ge

an

d y

es r

esp

on

ses.

Qu

esti

on

1: H

isto

ry

imp

ort

an

t?

2: O

wn

his

tory

more

so?

3: A

rch

aeo

logy

use

ful?

4: H

eard

of

non

loca

l th

eory

?

5: N

on

loca

l h

um

an

ori

gin

s tr

ue?

r-va

lue

p-v

alu

er-

valu

ep

-valu

er-

valu

ep

-valu

er-

valu

ep

-valu

er-

valu

ep

-valu

eD

f

All A

ges

0.0

871

0.3

935

0.1

246

0.2

215

−0.3

393

0.0

006

0.0

041

0.9

679

−0.2

918

0.0

035

96

Ta

ble

4.2

. R

elati

on

ship

of

yes

resp

on

ses

bet

wee

n a

ge

gro

up

s 0–35 y

ears

an

d 3

5–100 y

ears

.

Qu

esti

on

1: H

isto

ry

imp

ort

an

t?

2: O

wn

his

tory

mo

re s

o?

3: A

rch

aeo

logy

use

ful?

4: H

eard

of

non

loca

l th

eory

?

5: N

on

loca

l h

um

an

ori

gin

s tr

ue?

Res

pon

ses

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Age

0–35

71

749

29

55

23

41

37

54

24

Age

35–100

19

114

6

7

13

12

8

9

11

df

= 1

df

= 1

df

= 1

df

= 1

df

= 1

X²

= *

.015

X²

= 0

.357

X²

= 8

.638

X²

= 0

.354

X²

= 4

.071

p =

*.9

025

p =

0.5

501

p =

0.0

033

p =

0.5

519

p =

0.0

436

*Yate

s’ c

hi-

squ

are

an

d p

-valu

e co

rrec

tion

s em

plo

yed

wh

ere

valu

es o

f 5 o

r le

ss o

ccu

r in

20 p

erce

nto

r m

ore

cel

ls.




Relationship by Age

We predicted that age of the respondent would have a clear affect on responses,

and this was supported by the data for the oldest age group and less so with the

categories under age 35. The group showing the greatest relationship between

age and survey responses is the 35 and older group. This age range was

selected because it was most probable that those individuals’ responses would

be infl uenced by memories of life under three different political systems.

The analysis using Pearson’s correlation coeffi cient across all age ranges

shows that on question three and question fi ve, where p < 0.05, there is a

moderately strong correlation between the respondents’ age and their

responses on the survey (Tables 4.1 and 4.2). Note that these correlations are

negative correlations, meaning that for questions three and fi ve, the older

the respondent was, the less likely they were to respond to a survey question

with yes. The conclusion that age is a factor in yes responses to the survey is

reinforced when respondents are divided into two age groups of 0–35 years old

and 35–100 years old using the chi-square test (Table 4.3), which also found a

relationship between age of respondent and yes responses to the survey. The

older a respondent is, the less likely they were to respond yes to the survey

question.

This may show that older respondents were more resistant to scientifi c

theories than younger people. It would be interesting to investigate this further

in future studies. The role of church-based education in this predominantly

Catholic population may well be a factor here.

Relationship by Gender

We did not predict a strong relationship between gender and survey responses

and this is largely supported by the results (Table 4.3). Overall, the results

of the chi-square test show that gender was not a signifi cant factor in survey

responses. This is still an interesting result in that we often heard reports of

differential access to education, particularly by those who were of school age

during the Portuguese administration, when boys were more likely to attend

school. Perhaps the survey questions themselves or the fact that the survey

administrator was male are to blame for not allowing this relationship if it in

fact exists to be teased from the data.

Relationship by Education Level

While there is an abundance of interesting data related to the respondent’s level

of education as it relates to other survey variables, the strongest relationship found




Ta

ble

4.3

. R

elat

ion

ship

bet

wee

n g

end

er a

nd

yes

res

pon

ses.

Qu

esti

on

1: H

isto

ry

imp

ort

an

t?

2: O

wn

his

tory

more

so?

3: A

rch

aeo

logy

use

ful?

4: H

eard

of

non

loca

l th

eory

?

5: N

on

loca

l h

um

an

ori

gin

s tr

ue?

Res

pon

ses

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Male

65

542

28

42

28

38

32

44

26

Fem

ale

25

320

8

20

8

15

13

18

10

df

= 1

df

= 1

df

= 1

df

= 1

df

= 1

X²

= *

.031

X²

= 1

.124

X²

= 1

.124

X²

= 0

.004

X²

= 0

.018

p =

*.8

602

p =

0.2

891

p =

0.2

891

p =

0.9

496

p =

0.8

933

*Yat

es’ ch

i-sq

uare

an

d p

-valu

e co

rrec

tion

s em

plo

yed

wh

ere

valu

es o

f 5 o

r le

ss o

ccu

r in

20 p

erce

nt

or

more

cel

ls.

Ta

ble

4.4

. P

erce

nta

ge

of

yes

resp

on

ses

to e

ach

qu

esti

on

by

edu

cati

on

lev

el.

Qu

esti

on

1: H

isto

ry

imp

ort

an

t?

2: O

wn

his

tory

more

so?

3: A

rch

aeo

logy

use

ful?

4: H

eard

of

non

loca

l th

eory

?

5: N

on

loca

l h

um

an

ori

gin

s tr

ue?

Level of

education

Post

-SM

A90.0

%60.0

%60.0

%30.0

%40.0

%

SM

A97.1

%71.4

%71.4

%57.1

%62.9

%

SM

P82.6

%34.8

%73.9

%69.6

%82.6

%

SD

85.7

%85.7

%42.9

%0.0

%57.1

%

No f

orm

al ed

uca

tion

100.0

%75.0

%0.0

%75.0

%37.5

%




Ta

ble

4.5

. R

elati

on

ship

bet

wee

n e

du

cati

on

lev

el a

nd

yes

res

pon

ses.

Qu

esti

on

1: H

isto

ry

imp

ort

an

t?

2: O

wn

his

tory

more

so?

3: A

rch

aeo

logy

use

ful?

4: H

eard

of

non

loca

l th

eory

?

5: N

on

loca

l h

um

an

ori

gin

s tr

ue?

Res

pon

ses

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Post

-SM

A6

04

23

32

44

2

SM

A52

239

15

39

15

28

26

33

21

SM

P18

58

15

17

616

719

4

SD

6

16

13

41

64

3

No f

orm

al ed

uca

tion

80

62

08

62

35

df

= 4

df

= 4

df

= 4

df

= 4

df

= 4

X²

= *

4.9

37

X²

= *

9.4

22

X²

= *

13.9

92

X²

= *

5.7

49

X²

= *

4.2

94

p =

*.2

938

p =

*.0

514

p =

*.0

073

p =

*.2

187

p =

*.3

677

*Yat

es’ ch

i-sq

uare

an

d p

-valu

e co

rrec

tion

s em

plo

yed

wh

ere

valu

es o

f 5 o

r le

ss o

ccu

r in

20 p

erce

nt

or

more

cel

ls.




using the chi-square test between education level and yes responses to the survey

questions occurs on question three, where again, p < 0.05 and we can reject our

null hypothesis (Tables 4.4 and 4.5). This shows that we can be confi dent that

education was a factor in yes responses. The more educated the respondent,

the more likely they were to respond yes to this question. This suggests that

education level may be a predictive factor in the acceptance and understanding

of archaeology in local communities. However, it is not necessarily closely tied

to attitudes about the past and history. In Manatuto, almost all people believe

that history is important, regardless of education level.

Conclusions

Although this pilot survey raises more questions than it answers, there are several

trends that may bear further investigation. In general, those surveyed believe that

history is important and the majority believe that archaeology can play a role in

investigating that history. Age seemed to be the most important variable affecting

people’s attitudes towards history and archaeology, perhaps unsurprisingly. The

infl uence of education was less clear, perhaps refl ecting the dramatically changing

state of education in Timor Leste during the last 40 years.

This small pilot study may not clarify a picture of public attitudes towards

cultural heritage in Timor Leste, but it should provide some important

issues to consider for archaeologists and cultural resource managers working

there. Foremost is the fact that the public strongly values history and cultural

heritage. Results in Manatuto are not dissimilar from those in the US, where

over 90 percent of respondents to a 1999 survey thought that archaeological

sites should be protected by law. This strong public support is a major resource

for government agencies and research archaeologists alike. On the other

hand, if the public perceives that government agencies or archaeologists are

not protecting these resources, public opinion may turn against them. This

partly explains the negative attitudes held by Native Americans towards

archaeologists in the US, where archaeologists are often described as looters

or grave robbers (Deloria 1992; Thomas 2000).

With these cautionary lessons fi rmly in mind, we have used an evolving set

of rules to govern our practice in Timor Leste (and other places). Many of

these are inspired by the strong interest of local people in heritage as indicated

in this and other surveys, as well as a widespread skepticism of scientifi c

investigation, particularly among older people:

1) Negotiate for research access to sites at the local level. Given the high level of

interest among people at the local level in the past, we do not assume that

permission given by the national or district governments excludes the need




to obtain permission from local traditional leaders and landowners. That

said, it is often far from clear who has authority at the local, traditional level,

particularly in the volatile sociopolitical framework of Timor Leste in the past

few years.

2) Involve local people in research activities. We try to involve local residents

not only as paid laborers, but also as guides, informants and interpreters.

Typically, the best communication happens during excavations or survey

as we talk about our objectives and also listen to concerns, questions and

interests of local participants. It is useful to assign at least one person as a

full-time spokesperson during excavations, especially those conducted near

towns and villages where activities naturally generate intense local interest.

We have also found it useful to involve local schoolteachers and students in

projects. This has two advantages, the fi rst being that involving students is

one way to depoliticize the issues surrounding research permission (such as

land tenure and local political authority). Secondly, students and teachers

are effective communicators and will spread your message widely to adults in

the community who may be too busy with other activities to see what you are

doing. Just as important, our survey indicates that history and archaeology

are being taught in local schools, so involving students can be a great advantage

for both the archaeologists and the local education system.

3) Develop a clear understanding of what will happen to collections after the excavations.

Will they go to a museum or be on loan for analysis? Will human remains,

grave goods and other sacred objects be allowed to be removed from sites

and if so will they be returned, and when? Those who do not have prior

experience with archaeology will often assume that you plan to sell artifacts

to make money (Schefold and Vermeulen 2002). By clearly communicating

and demonstrating that this is not a part of archaeological research, these

misconceptions can be minimized along with the tensions they bring.

4) Communicate research results. This is often the hardest for archaeologists to

do, but is frequently of central concern for local communities. While copies

of offprints of academic articles and books will be appreciated, language

differences mean that local residents may not be able to read or understand

this kind of information. Other more appropriate methods can include

posters (in local languages), slide shows or talks in local schools or community

centers, small museum exhibits or videos (Jameson 1997; Lape 2004). These

communications must take into account differing attitudes and preconceptions

held by various age, gender and education groups.

Finally, we strongly support additional research on these issues. Government

policy and research practices are carried out all too often with little knowledge

of how they will be perceived by the people most affected by them. We hope




this study will inspire others particularly those in Southeast Asia to work on

these issues.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank John Miksic and the Asia Research Institute,

National University of Singapore for organizing the 2006 conference where this

paper was fi rst presented. Thanks to Sue O’Connor and the two anonymous

reviewers whose comments improved our paper. We also thank the staff of the

Secretariat of Culture, Timor Leste, including Virgilio Simith, Cecilia Assis,

Abílio da Conceição Silva and the other staff for their support during the 2005

fi eld season, as well as the University of Washington fi eld school participants:

Chin-yung Chao, James Taylor, Robert Wood, Jana Futch, Brooke Avery, and

Kass Bessert. Finally, thanks to the residents of Manatuto who took the time to

respond to our survey and who accommodated our team during excavations.

Websites of Interest

State Secretariat of Culture, Timor Leste

http://www.cultura.gov.tl/

Ename Center

http://www.enamecenter.org/

The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)

http://www.international.icomos.org/

References

Almeida, António. 1961. Contribution à l’étude du néolithique du Timor Portugais. Hamburg:

International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences.

Almeida, António and Georges Zbyszewski. 1967. “Contribution to the Study of the Prehistory

of Portuguese Timor Lithic Industries.” Asian and Pacifi c Archaeology Series 1: 55–67.

Centeno, R. M. S. and I. C. de Sousa. 2001. Uma Lulik Timor. Porto: Universidade do Porto.

Chao, Chin-yung. 2008. “A Microregional Approach to the Social Dynamics in the Late

Prehistoric Manatuto, East Timor, Eleventh to Eighteenth Century.” PhD dissertation,

Department of Anthropology, University of Washington.

Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Correa, A. A. Mendes. 1964. “Sobre alguns exemplares com facies paleolitica de Timor

Portugues.” Portugal 50: 13–35.

Dalton, R. 2005a. “Fossil Finders in Tug of War over Analysis of Hobbit Bones.” Nature

434: 5.




. 2005b. “More Evidence for Hobbit Unearthed as Diggers Are Refused Access to

Cave.” Nature 437: 934.

Deloria, Vine. 1992. “Indians, Archaeologists and the Future.” American Antiquity 57.4 595–8.

Fox, J. J. and D. B. Soares (eds). 2000. Out of the Ashes: Deconstruction and Reconstruction of East

Timor. Adelaide: Crawford House.

Glover, Ian. 1970. Excavations in Timor: A Study of Economic Change and Cultural Continuity in

Prehistory. Canberra: Australian National University.. 1986. Archaeology in Eastern Timor, 1966–67. Canberra: Research School of Pacifi c

Studies, Australian National University.. 2004. “Writing Southeast Asian Prehistoric Archaeology: The Western

Contribution from Colonialism to Nationalism.” In V. Paz (ed.), Southeast Asian

Archaeology, 64–80. Quezon City: University of the Philippines.

Glover, Ian and E. Glover (eds). 1990. “The Future of Overseas Archaeological Research

in Southeast Asia: Seminar and Discussion.” Proceedings of the 3rd Conference of the

European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists, Hull.

Gunn, Geoffrey.1999. Timor Loro Sae: 500 Years. Macau: Livros do Oriente.

Hoskins, Janet. 1998. Biographical Objects: How Things Tell the Stories of People’s Lives. New York:

Routledge.

Hutt, Sherry, Marion Forsyth and David Tarler. 2006. Presenting Archaeology in Court: Legal

Strategies for Protecting Cultural Resources. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Hutt, Sherry, Elwood Jones and Martin McAllister. 1992. Archaeological Resource Protection.

Washington DC: The Preservation Press.

Jameson, John H. 1997. Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths. Walnut Creek,

CA: AltaMira Press.

King, Thomas F. 1998. Cultural Resource Law and Practice: An Introductory Guide. Walnut Creek,

CA: AltaMira Press.. 2002. Thinking About Cultural Resource Management: Essays From the Edge. Walnut

Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Kreps, Christina. K. 2003. Liberating Culture: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Museums, Curation,

and Heritage Preservation. New York: Routledge.

Lape, Peter. 2003. “Does Archaeology Have a Role in Building the Nation of East Timor?”

http://www.asiasource.org/asip/archaeology.cfm (accessed 4 November 2010).. 2004. “Working with Local Museums: A Case Study from Eastern Indonesia.”

Bulletin of the Indo-Pacifi c Prehistory Association 23: 187–90.. 2006. “On the Use of Archaeology and History in Island Southeast Asia.” In

N. Yoffee and Bradley Crowell (eds), Excavating Asian History: Interdisciplinary Studies in

Archaeology and History, 278–306. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.

Lape, Peter and Chin-yung Chao. 2008. “Fortifi cation as a Human Response to Late

Holocene Climate Change in East Timor.” Archaeology in Oceania 43: 113–24.

Lape, Peter, Sue O’Connor and Nick Burningham. 2007. “Rock Art: A Potential Source of

Information About Past Maritime Technology in the Southeast Asia-Pacifi c Region.”

International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 36.2: 238–53.

Layton, Robert. 1989. Confl ict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions. London and Boston:

Unwin Hyman.

Little, Barbara J. 2002. Public Benefi ts of Archaeology. Gainesville: University Press of

Florida.

Lowry, Richard. 2011. “Concepts and Applications of Inferential Statistics.” http://faculty.

vassar.edu/lowry/webtext.html (accessed 4 November 2010).




Marr, D. G. and A. Reid. 1979. Perceptions of the Past in Southeast Asia. Singapore: Heinemann

Educational Books (Asia) for the Asian Studies Association of Australia.

Mathers, Clay, Timothy Darvill and Barbara Little (eds). 2005. Heritage of Value, Archaeology

of Renown. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

McManamon, F. P. 1991. “Many Publics for Archaeology.” American Antiquity 56.1:

121–30.

McWilliam, Andrew. “New Beginnings in East Timorese Forest Management.” Journal of

Southeast Asian Studies 34.2: 307–27.. 2007a. “Harbouring Traditions in East Timor: Marginality in a Lowland

Entrepôt.” Modern Asian Studies 41.6: 1113–43.. 2007b. “Looking for Adê: A Contribution to Timorese Historiography.” Bijdragen

tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 163.2–3: 221–38.. 2008. “Fataluku Healing and Cultural Resilience in East Timor.” Ethnos 73.2:

217–40.

Motulsky, Harvey J. 2010. Intuitive Biostatistics: A Nonmathematical Guide to Statistical Thinking.

New York: Oxford University Press.

O’Connor, Sue. 2007. “New Evidence from East Timor Contributes to Our Understanding

of Earliest Modern Human Colonisation East of the Sunda Shelf.” Antiquity 81:

523–55.

O’Connor, Sue, Ken Aplin, E. St Pierre and X. Feng. 2010. “Faces of the Ancestors

Revealed: Discovery and Dating of Pleistocene-Aged Petroglyphs in Lene Hara Cave,

East Timor.” Antiquity 84.325: 649–65.

O’Connor, Sue, A. Barham, M. Spriggs, P. Veth, Ken Aplin and E. St Pierre. 2010. “Cave

Archaeology and Sampling Issues in the Tropics: A Case Study from Lene Hara Cave,

a 42,000 Year Old Occupation Site in East Timor, Island Southeast Asia.” Australian

Archaeology 71: 29–40.

O’Connor, Sue and N. V. Oliveira. 2007. “Inter- and Intraregional Variation in the Austronesian

Painting Tradition: A View from East Timor.” Asian Perspectives 46.2: 389–403.

O’Connor, Sue, Sandra Pannell and Sally Brockwell. “Whose Culture and Heritage for

Whom? The Limits of National Public Good Protected Area Models in Timor Leste.”

In this volume.

O’Connor, Sue, Matthew Spriggs and Peter Veth. 2002. “Excavation at Lene Hara Cave

Establishes Occupation in East Timor at Least 30,000–35,000 Years Ago.” Antiquity

76: 45–50.

Ormeling, F. J. 1956. The Timor Problem: A Geographical Interpretation of an Underdeveloped Island.

Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.

Pannell, Sandra. 2004. Welcome to The Hotel Tutuala: Fataluku Accounts of Going Places in an

Immobile World. Melbourne: Australian Anthropological Society Conference, University

of Melbourne.. 2006. “Welcome to the Hotel Tutuala: Fataluku Accounts of Going Places in an

Immobile World.” The Asia Pacifi c Journal of Anthropology 7.3: 203–19.

Pannell, Sandra and Sue O’Connor. 2005. “Toward a Cultural Topography of Cave Use

in East Timor: A Preliminary Study.” Asian Perspectives 44.1: 193–206.

Pendergast, D. 1998. “The Bedfellows are Less Strange These Days: The Changing

Relationship between Archaeologists and the Media.” SAA Bulletin 16.5: 12.

Pokotylo, David and Andrew Mason. 1991. “Public Attitudes Towards Archaeological

Resources and Their Management.” In George Smith and John Ehrenhard (eds),

Protecting the Past, 9–18 Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.




Ramos, Maria and David Duganne. 2000. “Exploring Public Perceptions and Attitudes about

Archaeology.” Report prepared by Harris Interactive Inc. for the Society for American

Archaeology.

Schefold, Reimar and Han F. Vermeulen (eds). 2002. Treasure Hunting?: Collectors and Collections

of Indonesian Artefacts. Leiden: CNWS.

Schmidt, P. R. and T. C. Patterson. 1995. Making Alternative Histories: The Practice of Archaeology

and History in Non-Western Settings. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.

Spriggs, Matthew, Sue O’Connor and Peter Veth. 2003. “Vestiges of Early Pre-Agricultural

Economy in the Landscape of East Timor: Recent Research.” In Anna Kallen and

Anna Karlstrom (eds), Fishbones and Glittering Emblems: Proceedings from the EurASEEA

Sigtuna Conference, 49–58. Stockholm: Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities.

Thomas, D. H. 2000. The Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archaeology, and the Battle for Native

American Identity. New York: Basic Books.

Veth, Peter, Matthew Spriggs and Sue O’Connor. 2005. “The Continuity of Cave Use in

the Tropics: Examples From East Timor and the Aru Islands, Maluku.” Asian Perspectives

44.1: 180–92.

Vitelli, K. D. and Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh. 2006. Archaeological Ethics. Lanham, MD:

Altamira Press.

Watkins, Joe. 2000. Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientifi c Practice. Walnut

Creek, CA and Oxford: AltaMira Press.

Zimmerman, Larry, Karen Vitelli and Julie Hollowell-Zimmer. 2003. Ethical Issues in

Archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Zurbuchen, Mary S. (ed.) 2005. Beginning to Remember: The Past in the Indonesian Present (Critical

Dialogues in Southeast Asian Studies). Singapore: Singapore University Press.



peter lape and randy hert - university of washington

Documents